In an earlier post, I was complaining about how NTNU decided to use money for sponsoring the premier event of a sport more ridden with drug controversy than pro bodybuilding. Turns out many of the academic staff members and students at NTNU also criticized this sponsoring, much for the same reasons. Marketing experts also threw their hat in with NTNU faculty and called this sponsoring "throwing money out the window". This idea was deemed a bad one by faculty, students and a marketing expert.
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, NTNU Press Secretary Christian Fossen disagrees with the criticism, and labels the ad campaign an unbridled success, where NTNU got it's money's worth. Moreover, he claims to have data to back him up. I found that to be interesting, and was prepared to eat some crow and admit I was wrong as I clicked on the link to read the piece.
Turns out I was right after all, but that it's possible to put a positive spin on the situation. You see; whomever was in charge of deciding to sponsor TDf and subsequently launched the project was clever enough never to publicly advertise the desired measurables of the project. Thus, a statistically significant change in any ol' variable can be claimed as a success after the fact, because you never advertised what you were after in the first place. Simply wait for a change in the dataset and claim that's what you planned all along.
Which deliverables can be reported after the ad campaign? Something Fossen refers to as "uhjulpet kjennskap" (unassisted familiarity). I had no idea what this concept encompasses, but luckily the piece offers a definition by example: One of the questions asked by pollsters is whether the interviewee can name any Norwegian universities. If the person lists NTNU among the universities, this is checked off as "unassisted familiarity" - in other words the interviewee was familiar with the name at the time of the polling. Prior to NTNU sponsoring TDf, NTNU had an "unassisted familiarity" of 39%. In other words; only 39% of the people being interviewed could name NTNU as a Norwegian university. Pretty dysmal. Fossen offers the explanation that many of the interviewees had answered NTH, AVH or the University of Trondheim, two of which are the old names for the institutions which were merged to form NTNU. After TDf, the "unassisted familiarity" had increased to 59%. According to Fossen, this qualifies as an unbridled success, and money well spent.
The trick is lowering the bar, it appears. I can see now that in my boundless naïveté, I thought that for sponsoring to result in a success for the sponsor, said campaign would have to result in primarily increased revenue (spend money to make money), or by improving the image of the sponsor so as to increase the revenue potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of the financing for a university comes from a) funding which follows each student, b) the Research Council (be it directly from NFR or via EU projects), c) collaborations with industry, and d) special financing directly from the government to launch research or teaching in targeted areas, like CO2 capture. As such, any venture intended to increase revenue should either cajole more students to join NTNU, or somehow infuse more capital from funding agencies and industry.
I fail to understand how increasing the "unassisted familiarity" from 39% to 59% helps NTNU in any significant way, shape or form. As far as I know, NTNU does not have an image problem - much less one that can be remedied by sponsoring TDf. The fact that more people in general are cognizant of NTNU being a Norwegian university than before doesn't do much for me. After all, we don't have that many universities in Norway, and I'm hardly impressed that less than 60% can name the second largest one. Just having more people know that you exist isn't exactly a guarantee that this mere fact can be translated into a revenue-generating machine. Nor does it guarantee that this inspires people to know more about said enterprise. A lot more people know that there's a large company named Haliburton now than before 2000/2001, but that doesn't mean that the majority knows what Haliburton does specifically, and it really doesn't mean that more people are interesting in sponsoring Haliburton or working for them.
Exactly how the mere fact that more people know that NTNU is a Norwegian university can aid in getting more students is also kind of a mystery to me. Last time I checked, and as I wrote in my previous post on the topic, high-school students get all kinds of information about what opportunities exist for higher education their senior year (and earlier), and they've probably been offered a tour of NTNU and other universities. If NTNU sponsoring TDf is what makes students choose that particular university, I'm inclined to think that such a particular batch of students would leave NTNU holding the bag. As for the odds of this advertising should increase funding from government and industry, that's just insulting to both NFR and industry. Is Fossen suggesting that someone high up in StatoilHydro was sitting around at their research center (located in Trondheim, btw) thinking "Damn; if only I knew of a university located not too far from here where we could procure some R&D services and sponsor future employees. Let's turn on the boob tube and see what's on - I've been wanting to check out this Tour de baguette thing or whatever the hell it's called. Hey wait; something called NTNU is sponsoring this event, and they're saying it's a university. Quick; to the StatoilHydromobile! Must.......Throw....Big Bags...of Money...at them....NOW!"
Naaah...I don't think so. Way to set the bar low. Essentially they paid a lot of money for people who are unlikely to attend or sponsor them, in return for a larger percentile of faceless strangers knowing that they existed in the first place. Self-ownage.
I discussed this briefly with a colleague earlier today, and he wasn't sure what signal NTNU was sending to it's employees by sponsoring TDf. He narrowed the possibilities down to either (i) encouraging more people to use their bicycles to commute (which is a good thing), or (ii) to encourage use of performance-enhancing chemicals and other drugs among the employees (not so good).
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, NTNU Press Secretary Christian Fossen disagrees with the criticism, and labels the ad campaign an unbridled success, where NTNU got it's money's worth. Moreover, he claims to have data to back him up. I found that to be interesting, and was prepared to eat some crow and admit I was wrong as I clicked on the link to read the piece.
Turns out I was right after all, but that it's possible to put a positive spin on the situation. You see; whomever was in charge of deciding to sponsor TDf and subsequently launched the project was clever enough never to publicly advertise the desired measurables of the project. Thus, a statistically significant change in any ol' variable can be claimed as a success after the fact, because you never advertised what you were after in the first place. Simply wait for a change in the dataset and claim that's what you planned all along.
Which deliverables can be reported after the ad campaign? Something Fossen refers to as "uhjulpet kjennskap" (unassisted familiarity). I had no idea what this concept encompasses, but luckily the piece offers a definition by example: One of the questions asked by pollsters is whether the interviewee can name any Norwegian universities. If the person lists NTNU among the universities, this is checked off as "unassisted familiarity" - in other words the interviewee was familiar with the name at the time of the polling. Prior to NTNU sponsoring TDf, NTNU had an "unassisted familiarity" of 39%. In other words; only 39% of the people being interviewed could name NTNU as a Norwegian university. Pretty dysmal. Fossen offers the explanation that many of the interviewees had answered NTH, AVH or the University of Trondheim, two of which are the old names for the institutions which were merged to form NTNU. After TDf, the "unassisted familiarity" had increased to 59%. According to Fossen, this qualifies as an unbridled success, and money well spent.
The trick is lowering the bar, it appears. I can see now that in my boundless naïveté, I thought that for sponsoring to result in a success for the sponsor, said campaign would have to result in primarily increased revenue (spend money to make money), or by improving the image of the sponsor so as to increase the revenue potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of the financing for a university comes from a) funding which follows each student, b) the Research Council (be it directly from NFR or via EU projects), c) collaborations with industry, and d) special financing directly from the government to launch research or teaching in targeted areas, like CO2 capture. As such, any venture intended to increase revenue should either cajole more students to join NTNU, or somehow infuse more capital from funding agencies and industry.
I fail to understand how increasing the "unassisted familiarity" from 39% to 59% helps NTNU in any significant way, shape or form. As far as I know, NTNU does not have an image problem - much less one that can be remedied by sponsoring TDf. The fact that more people in general are cognizant of NTNU being a Norwegian university than before doesn't do much for me. After all, we don't have that many universities in Norway, and I'm hardly impressed that less than 60% can name the second largest one. Just having more people know that you exist isn't exactly a guarantee that this mere fact can be translated into a revenue-generating machine. Nor does it guarantee that this inspires people to know more about said enterprise. A lot more people know that there's a large company named Haliburton now than before 2000/2001, but that doesn't mean that the majority knows what Haliburton does specifically, and it really doesn't mean that more people are interesting in sponsoring Haliburton or working for them.
Exactly how the mere fact that more people know that NTNU is a Norwegian university can aid in getting more students is also kind of a mystery to me. Last time I checked, and as I wrote in my previous post on the topic, high-school students get all kinds of information about what opportunities exist for higher education their senior year (and earlier), and they've probably been offered a tour of NTNU and other universities. If NTNU sponsoring TDf is what makes students choose that particular university, I'm inclined to think that such a particular batch of students would leave NTNU holding the bag. As for the odds of this advertising should increase funding from government and industry, that's just insulting to both NFR and industry. Is Fossen suggesting that someone high up in StatoilHydro was sitting around at their research center (located in Trondheim, btw) thinking "Damn; if only I knew of a university located not too far from here where we could procure some R&D services and sponsor future employees. Let's turn on the boob tube and see what's on - I've been wanting to check out this Tour de baguette thing or whatever the hell it's called. Hey wait; something called NTNU is sponsoring this event, and they're saying it's a university. Quick; to the StatoilHydromobile! Must.......Throw....Big Bags...of Money...at them....NOW!"
Naaah...I don't think so. Way to set the bar low. Essentially they paid a lot of money for people who are unlikely to attend or sponsor them, in return for a larger percentile of faceless strangers knowing that they existed in the first place. Self-ownage.
I discussed this briefly with a colleague earlier today, and he wasn't sure what signal NTNU was sending to it's employees by sponsoring TDf. He narrowed the possibilities down to either (i) encouraging more people to use their bicycles to commute (which is a good thing), or (ii) to encourage use of performance-enhancing chemicals and other drugs among the employees (not so good).
Posts
12 comments:
Hold on to your hat there. The people whom knew about NTNU increased from 39% last year to 59% this year (the "unassisted familiarity"). Sounds pretty good, I have to agree, if that's what you're after.
However, if you read the article in Adressa, it said that it increased from 39% to 50% before the Tour de France (sorry, france) campaign. But, Press spokesperson Fossen claims, the sponsoring brought the final number from 50% to 59%. Depending on when these measurments are made, it seems to me that the last 9% just as well could be explained by extrapolating the trend in the data before the Tour (25% four years ago, 39% last year, 50% in May(?) and 59% in the August). So, unless mr. Fossen can come up with better evidence and statistics, I interpent these data as the campaign gave much less then 9 percentage increase. The contribution from the campaign may even be insignificant.
Før årets kampanje økte kjennskapen til NTNU fra 39 prosent i fjor til 50 prosent.
- Selve kampanjen løftet det hele fra 50 til 50 prosent.
You're right, but the piece also claims it increased from 50% to 50% as a result of the campaign, so I'm officially confused. The piece actually states three different things - the first one which I latched onto, what you correctly deduced, and that there's no change.
Good call, btw. My reading comprehension left something to be desired.
However; I stand by my overall conclusion that it doesn't freakin' matter even if the increase was from 39% to 59%, unless the poll was performed targeting the fraction of the population for which NTNU is relevant.
You're right, but the piece also claims it increased from 50% to 50% as a result of the campaign, so I'm officially confused.
I just guessed that was a typing error, since the 0 and 9 is close on the keyboard (not using the keypad).
I stand by my overall conclusion that it doesn't freakin' matter even if the increase was from 39% to 59%
Well, they may not even have that.
...unless the poll was performed targeting the fraction of the population for which NTNU is relevant.
Don't think there's anybody in Norway with a degree in science or engineering (or planning an education/ working in that field) that doesn't know what NTNU is. Of course some may still refer to it as NTH out of old habit, but what's in a name?
Anyway, I do not really care about how NTNU spends their money, as I'm not linked to the institution, and thus have not special interest or insider information.
But to be the devils advocate here: It's also a dangerous way of think of measuring any money spent as "number of PhD-students" (or something similar). I haven't actually seen that argument yet, but it's pretty close. Yeah, I'm sure the money could have been spent at some needing institute at NTNU, but following this line of thought means we can't spend money on nothing as long as there's starving children in Africa. I've seen this when Hospital economy is dicussed; everything is devived into "Nurse positions" (great play, since a medical doctor position is 3x that sum).
There are still people who refer to NTNU as NTH on principle....
Yeah, I'm sure the money could have been spent at some needing institute at NTNU, but following this line of thought means we can't spend money on nothing as long as there's starving children in Africa.
In this case it's more like some guy who spends his paycheck on a flatscreen rather than paying the rent. No third world countries are involved, just a decline in the financial situation of a sponsor who wasn't Trump to begin with.
No third world countries are involved.
In Academia, the third world is the Faculty of Humanities. Especially the Department of Linguistics, Cultural and Religious studies. Fact. And they were mentioned in Adressa...
just a decline in the financial situation of a sponsor who wasn't Trump to begin with
Which is true. But my point is, an institution as NTNU should be allowed to spend (a lot of) money on a niche, be it a special study, a building, a lab or an PR campaign, if they want to. They don't have a lot of money, and sometimes it could be wise to focus on a few, selected areas, rather spreading the fundings too thin all over the place. That's why I think it's wrong to say "Why spend money on _insert hated money drain_ when we had to cut 25% of our program in Linguistics?". It's a strategic choice from NTNU, and should be allowed.
The tour campaign is a failure because NTNU can't show any real benefits from it, most PR experts agree that TV ads are the wrong way of building a brand for an academic institution and the Tour has a dark side that NTNU wouldn't want to be associated with.
It's really irrelevant that the Department of Nordic Studies has to cut their beginning classes with 25% or that 500 kNOK would have bought every new chemistry student their own pH-meter.
In Academia, the third world is the Faculty of Humanities. Especially the Department of Linguistics, Cultural and Religious studies. Fact.
LOL, but no freakin' comment. You've got no love for the soft sciences?
They don't have a lot of money, and sometimes it could be wise to focus on a few, selected areas, rather spreading the fundings too thin all over the place. That's why I think it's wrong to say "Why spend money on _insert hated money drain_ when we had to cut 25% of our program in Linguistics?". It's a strategic choice from NTNU, and should be allowed.
That's only half true though. While I agree that it makes sense to focus on some selected areas rather than spreading the resources really thin, that ain't how the government wants Norwegian universities to be like. Otherwise they wouldn't have spread a meager budget for higher education and research over twice the number of universities that existed ten years ago, many of which also have programs which extend far beyond what their core competences are from their district college days.
The tour campaign is a failure because NTNU can't show any real benefits from it,
My point exactly
or that 500 kNOK would have bought every new chemistry student their own pH-meter.
..why would NTNU want that?
LOL, but no freakin' comment. You've got no love for the soft sciences?
Fact is that they get the least funding of all (per student). Regardless of how I feel. It's not like they need much equipment or such (barely new books; how much is new in the world of Latin?), which makes them a target for budget cuts. Yes, there are a lot of important "soft sciences", but it's a fact that they often are a target of budget cuts, especially since they aren't as "trendy" as they were some years ago.
That's only half true though. While I agree that it makes sense to focus on some selected areas rather than spreading the resources really thin, that ain't how the government wants Norwegian universities to be like.
While the universties and faculties don't have much impact on how much fundings they get, they do have a lot to say on how to distribute the little they get. So I still stand by my overall point.
over twice the number of universities that existed ten years ago
Yeah, that change is beyond me. I think we really see eye-to-eye on this one, Willster, but it's kind of a different problem: How the goverment scr*ws up higher education. Not how NTNU wastes their money.
The tour campaign is a failure because NTNU can't show any real benefits from it,
My point exactly
Jupp. We do agree. I just feel it's BS to drag in low funding on Scandinavian studies and comparative literature: The campaign is a failure regardless of the budget situation on the campus. Does anybody really believe that those 500 kNOK would have been channel into boosting the Comparative literature studies if they weren't spent on the Tour campaign?
or that 500 kNOK would have bought every new chemistry student their own pH-meter.
..why would NTNU want that?
Don't know.
The same reason the first year high school (Videregående) students was required to buy a scientific calculator?
Or the same reason why same high school students now are required to have their own laptop?
Or the same reason why NTNU would even want to have a Department of Scandinavian studies and comparative literature? (KIDDING!)
Yes, there are a lot of important "soft sciences", but it's a fact that they often are a target of budget cuts, especially since they aren't as "trendy" as they were some years ago.
Are you saying that soft sciences lost some of their appeal about the same time as bell-bottoms, tye-died shirts and herbal behavioral modification devices displayed a dip in popularity, Anders?
While the universties and faculties don't have much impact on how much fundings they get, they do have a lot to say on how to distribute the little they get.
...if the government opens up for fresh money for applications related to - say - paperback English literature and a university has a department or faculty dealing with something even vaguely resembling, don't you think they're gonna apply just to infuse some new capital?
Does anybody really believe that those 500 kNOK would have been channel into boosting the Comparative literature studies if they weren't spent on the Tour campaign?
..comparative literature studies...that just cracks me up. Somehow I picture two scraggy individuals each holding a book eye-balling each other, before one of them goes: "I see you've got a book there" Other guy: "Yup". First guy: How's that workin' out for ya?" etc
The same reason the first year high school (Videregående) students was required to buy a scientific calculator?
OMG what a waste that was. Spend most of first year high school math learning to program your Casio or Texas Instruments dealie. Then deep-six all of that the second you enter a university, 'cause they're all about Excel or MatLab (or Origin, or SigmaPlot or Igor Pro) depending on what you study.
Are you saying that soft sciences lost some of their appeal about the same time as bell-bottoms, tye-died shirts and herbal behavioral modification devices displayed a dip in popularity, Anders?
No, I'm not. If you were paying any attention on what's hip, you would've known that hippies are the next big thing on the retro front. :-)
Check the politicans. 10 years ago (or so) the big outcry was that we didn't knew enough language here in Norway. Sofies Verden even gave a strange study as Philosophy a boost. Etc. Now other things are trendy, and I would guess that the number of applicants to the Arts has dropped the last few years.
..comparative literature studies...that just cracks me up. Somehow I picture two scraggy individuals each holding a book eye-balling each other, before one of them goes: "I see you've got a book there" Other guy: "Yup". First guy: How's that workin' out for ya?" etc
LOL!
You do know that's actually the offical name of the deparment, cut'n'pasted from the NTNU webpage...?
OMG what a waste that was. Spend most of first year high school math learning to program your Casio or Texas Instruments dealie.
Worst part, people who was aiming for language or social science studies had to learn the same calculators. And back in the days, those calculators weren't cheap and got really outdate, really fast...
Sofies Verden even gave a strange study as Philosophy a boost. Etc. Now other things are trendy, and I would guess that the number of applicants to the Arts has dropped the last few years.
..alternatively, some clever mind discovered the low correlation between study points in philosophy and job opportunities. Thinking deep thoughts about being unemployed doesn't do much, methinks
Post a Comment